Does this make me lesser of a man? Does this make me an evil man? Does this make me an immoral man? Does this make me a man who belongs in prison? Does it make me a sinner? Does it make God love me any less?
<T>
Does it make you a more moral person than I
Posted by Toretha (Member # 2233) on :
1. no, because you are quite simply a man, I usually ignore lesser or greater when discussing people 2. no because I don't think anyone is so evil as to merit the title evil man 3. yes if you smoke it around people who get sick from the smoke or the smell, or smoke it irresponsibly in other ways that might hurt people. I generally consider harming people immoral, and there's no higher purpose in the personal gratification of smoking pot to justify it 4.maybe if you take the making people sick with it thing to extremes, or do other things because of smoking pot that harm people 5. no.
edited to add reasons and better structure
[ October 29, 2004, 12:51 AM: Message edited by: Toretha ]
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
Please explain to me why you answere the way you did. No, doesn't give much much insight into why you believe so.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
That is funny, I understood her quite well!
Kwea
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
It certainly makes you a criminal. Frankly, its not up to the individual to decide which laws are just and which are unjust. If it was then we ought replace government with anarchy. Furthermore, you're probably funding murderers by buying your drugs. This money is used soley for the purpose of enriching and encouraging murderers.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I thought you were going to quit.
Hobbes Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
In a democracy, laws are made by the people, so to a certain extent, it IS up to the people to decide which laws are just and which are unjust. And not all drug sellers are murderers, nor do all drug users have to buy it, they could just grow their own.
Posted by Allegra (Member # 6773) on :
I would say none of the above. I do not think that marijuana is any worse then alcohol, When either are used in moderation, I see it as being ok. It is a potentially irresponsible thing to do though. For example, if you have a family that is relying on you for money, and you get put in jail for marijuana, you are hurting your family.
I have a sort of unique perspective on this. If you really want to know about it you can IM me.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
1) Yes 2) no 3) Yes, on this issue 4) No 5) Up to god if he exists to decide 6) Up to god if he exists to decide. 7) On this issue, yes
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Let me rephrase, its not up to the people to decide which laws should be followed and which should not be. Unless Thor's growing it himself (which makes him guilty of an even greater crime) he's buying it from someone. That person may or may not be growing it him or herself and its likely that the money Thor uses to buy his marijuana is at some point being used to fund murderers.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Suppose I should answer the questions:
Does this make me lesser of a man? No more than drinking alcohol or smoking does. And thats not at all.
Does this make me an evil man? Again no more than smoking or drinking alcohol. If you were to harm someone else while under its influence than it'd be up for debate.
Does this make me an immoral man?' Same as above.
Does this make me a man who belongs in prison? According to me? No. According to the american government? Yes, but then the government is stupid like that on a lot of things.
Does it make me a sinner? I wouldn't know, I'm atheist.
Does it make God love me any less? Again, wouldn't know I'm athiest.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
In response to NFL, how is growing it himself an even greater crime than using it? In what sense? A moral one or a legalistic one?
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Legalistic if its only for personal use, morally if its also for distribution.
Posted by Toretha (Member # 2233) on :
nfl-a quotation from Gandhi "Civil disobedience becomes a sacred duty when the state has become lawless or corrupt. And a citizen who barters with such a state shares in its corruption and lawlessness."
Now while I would not apply this to marijuana, it certainly ought to be the place of a person to decide which laws to obey and which not to, if the laws are harming people.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Hobbes I did...I followed Bob's lead, and quit that conversation. I also will not make that mistake again.
Kwea
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Law isn't harming anyone, its preventing people from harming themselves and from spreading that harm to others. If you say its up to individuals to decide which laws to follow then why have any laws? Who are we to draw the line between harming oneself and harming others?
[ October 29, 2004, 12:54 AM: Message edited by: newfoundlogic ]
Posted by Toretha (Member # 2233) on :
also what you said
quote: Let me rephrase, its not up to the people to decide which laws should be followed and which should not be.
I have no arguments whatsoever with you on the marijuana point. Just with that statement.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote: Law isn't harming anyone, its preventing people from harming themselves and from spreading that harm to others. If you say its up to individuals to decide which laws to follow then why have any laws? Who are we to draw the line between harming oneself and harming others?
What bothers me about these sets of laws, is that marajuana is illegal, when alcohol and smoking are not. If that is truely the intent of the law, to protect one from harming oneself, and from harming others, then why are alcohol and smoking legal? There are far more deaths from drunk driving accidents and drunken murders then I think there have ever been from marajuana. Indeed this might be a function of a certain lack of avalibility of marajuana, but I think we can agree that alcohol is at least as harmful to its users and anyone else in the vicinity.
Becuase alcohol is legal and marajuana is illegal, it leads me to suspect that there is far more to the law than simply protecting someone from oneself and protecting others.
Also, it is not really the governments job to prevent us from harming ourselves. That is our own decision, and well with in our rights as citizens. It is its job to protect us from harming each other and trampling on each others rights. So the question is really, do marajuana (or alcohol) cross that line of cause enough harm to those other than those choosing to use it to merit its being outlawed?
Edit: that last paragraph is my opinion on how the government should be, and how the constitution intended it to be.
[ October 29, 2004, 01:12 AM: Message edited by: Alcon ]
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:I smoke marijuana.
Didn't you claim you were going to quit?
quote:Does this make me lesser of a man?
If you said you were going to quit but can't, then yeah.
quote:Does this make me an evil man?
Well, it could be argued that you are a liar, since you said you were quitting.
quote:Does this make me an immoral man?
If you are addicted to it, after saying you were going to quit but didn't, then you could definitely be called less pious than you try to come off.
quote:Does this make me a man who belongs in prison?
If you traffic it, sell it, or otherwise manipulate people with it, then yes.
quote:Does it make me a sinner?
According to whom?
quote:Does it make God love me any less?
It depends on who you ask.
quote:Does it make you a more moral person than I
It makes me able to say I'm not addicted to marijuana. Can you say the same?
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
It doesn't matter whether or not government should create laws designed to prevent people from harming themselves, it only matters whether or not they do create those laws. Since they do, everyone should follow them. Now I never said that you shouldn't work to repeal those laws, but since they haven't people ought to follow them. As far as alcohol and tobacco are concerned I would agree that they are somewhat hypocritical, which is a reason why you should encourage your representatives to change the laws, or vote for the Green Party. I would personally be all the happier if they were both illegal, but there are two problems. The first, is that alcohol is used in religious ceremonies by Catholics and Jews. The second is that since they have been legal it is extremely difficult to make them illegal because of their popularity. You may say that's unfair, I say its reality so either abide by the law and deal with it, or try to change it, don't become a criminal.
[ October 29, 2004, 01:35 AM: Message edited by: newfoundlogic ]
Posted by Allegra (Member # 6773) on :
Jutsa: He is allowed to change his mind. If he was having a hard time quitting would you beating him up about it help? No.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote: It doesn't matter whether or not government should create laws designed to prevent people from harming themselves, it only matters whether or not they do create those laws. Since they do, everyone should follow them. Now I never said that you shouldn't work to repeal those laws, but since they haven't people ought to follow them. As far as alcohol and tobacco are concerned I would agree that they are somewhat hypocritical, which is a reason why you should encourage your representatives to change the laws, or vote for the Green Party. I would personally be all the happier if they were both illegal, but there are two problems. The first, is that alcohol is used in religious ceremonies by Catholics and Jews. The second is that since they have been legal it is extremely difficult to make them illegal because of their popularity. You may say that's unfair, I say its reality so either abide by the law and deal with it, or try to change it, don't become a criminal.
Well yes, I agree with you that we should work to change such laws, but that illegalizing alcohol would be dificult... and personally I'm actually more in favor of going the other way and legalizing marijuana. But on the issue of changing it: it is unfortunate, but it often takes civil disobedience to change laws. It often takes people showing they have no respect for a law, and bluntly breaking it to get it changed. Personally I would do none of these drugs, never have. But I think its in a persons right, if they do it responsibly and don't harm others, to do them.
[ October 29, 2004, 01:46 AM: Message edited by: Alcon ]
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
I would say that if you have something that controls your life as much as I'm guessing marijuana does, it's time to take back that control. Furthermore, I have a major objection to legalizing marijuana, for the simple fact that I think the majority of people who want that smoke the stuff and I have a hard time accepting the idea of having what is legal or not being determined by people who take advantage of mind-altering chemicals (Whatever it is in marijuana that makes you mellow or stoned or whatever is ultimately a chemical that causes a chemical reaction) There, that's my 2 cents.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
Oh, and on the alcohol thing, I'm for making the stuff illegal, but it's been tried before, and didn't work because there was too much of our country already addicted to the stuff, some physically, some only psychologically (The guy who just drinks "casually" is considered psychologically addicted, because he can't wind his day down without that glass of wine or two. Take that away for a few days and he's fine, unlike the physical addiction which can take much longer and I think has major side effects)
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Its not a matter of who wants it legal, its a matter of whether or not the rest of us who don't care to do it can take away the right of the people who want to do to do it. And that sentense is really long and complex, but its the best I can do this time of night.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote: Its not a matter of who wants it legal, its a matter of whether or not the rest of us who don't care to do it can take away the right of the people who want to do to do it.
Honestly, I think the people who are capable of seeing the full consequences of an action have full right to ban that action if they determine it to be unsafe. Whether or not that ban sticks depends on the number of people who don't care, or disagree. That's called a democracy.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
if it is what you want to do and you are responsible and respectful I see no reason why you shouldn't do it. Marijuna doesn't bother me. Now heroine, speed, crack. That bothers me.
Posted by Allegra (Member # 6773) on :
Not everyone who smokes marijuana is consumed by it. I know teachers, doctors, bankers, that smoke occasionally, and who are fully capable of fufilling all of their obligations.
Posted by Chaeron (Member # 744) on :
nfl, if you aren't aware of the harm our drug laws cause, then you are seriously misinformed.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Thor, it DOES make you a lesser man.
Why?
Because you resolved a while back that pot was ripping away your ambition and clouding your mind, getting in the way of what you wanted to do, and resolved to quit.
If you are backsliding, don't try to cast it as some noble blow against the Man; just admit you're weaker than you thought.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Other's have covered the questions you asked. I'll just note that it certainly explains some of your posts.
Dagonee
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote: ...speed, crack. That bothers me.
Unfortunately, marijuana isn't always just marijuana anymore.
Careful, Thor.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:I would say that if you have something that controls your life as much as I'm guessing marijuana does, it's time to take back that control.
Like, say, a religious belief?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That religion controls people against their will is one of the biggest myths that arise from ignorance out there.
There's no control. People can and do leave their religions all the time.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Yes yes, and people can also drop their marijuana habit any time they like. But actually, that's not what I meant : My point was that, while you believe in a set of religious doctrines, they have a major influence on your life. Now, you may believe that is a good thing, and marijuana's control of someone's life is a bad thing, and it's not a totally indefensible belief. But you cannot condemn something, as Boris was doing, merely for having control over your life. You have to look at whether it is a control for good or for bad.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
quote: people can also drop their marijuana habit any time they like
Religion doesn't cause a chemical reaction that causes your body to need Religion in order to maintain homeostasis. Please stop making a comparison that doesn't exist.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
As a matter of fact, it does. One moment while I find a link.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Here we go. I've also read a study in New Scientist showing that strongly religious people show the same patterns of dopamine changes and brain activities as those addicted to gambling. Unfortunately, the cheap bastards won't let me search their print archives without signing up for a subscription, so I can't link that one. Which makes it rather useless as a source; I'm just trying to explain where my assertion in the previous post came from.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Anyone else think this discussion on a board called Hatcrack is hilarious?
Added: And television does that same thing to your brain. And pornography. Internet addiction. Comfort food.
[ October 29, 2004, 08:01 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Indeed that is true. I note that marijuana has no physical withdrawal symptoms. I think, then, that comparison to religion (or, as you say, porn) is entirely justified.
Posted by Danzig avoiding landmarks (Member # 6792) on :
1. Yes. Real men do alcohol and nicotine. 2. Drugs are bad, mmmkay? 3. See #2. 4. Marijuana is a vicious racket with its arms around your children. Think of the children! 5. Which religion? Mr. Anslinger's? DuPont Chemicals? Bob Marley's? 6. God hates you. 7. Marijuana is an evil weed. It lowers ambition. Sorry buddy, but in this nation our god is gold, not green, because money can buy happiness in the form of prescription drugs. A plant that anyone can grow with minimal investment is bad for the economy.
Seriously though, it is easier to deal with the crap of straightedgers (or alcoholics, tweakers, junkies, smokers of nicotine, etc.) if you just smile, agree that it is a horrible thing that ruins the lives of everyone who uses it, and cheerfully continue using anyway whenever you feel like it.
What made you pick it back up?
Posted by Sweet William (Member # 5212) on :
Does this make me lesser of a man?
Only in the sense that, when you are using it you voluntarily give up part of your self-control. And after having used it, you have destroyed brain cells, which affects your overall ability to think, reason, and police yourself long-term.
Does this make me an evil man?
Only in the sense that you are causing yourself damage, which is an evil act.
Does this make me an immoral man?
Only in the sense that you are breaking the law, and you are causing yourself damage, both of which are immoral acts to some extent.
Does this make me a man who belongs in prison?
Not in my opinion. Alcoholics damage themselves at least as much, sometimes more.
Does it make me a sinner?
Yes. God says "Thou Shalt Not Kill," and you are killing yourself by using this substance.
Does it make God love me any less?
No. He loves you the same, no matter what. He doesn't give us commandments so He can hate us when we don't keep them. He gives us commandments, because things will go so much better for us if we keep them.
Posted by Danzig avoiding landmarks (Member # 6792) on :
The law is irrelevant to questions of morality and/or ethics. It is immoral to smoke marijuana around minors if you are more than a year or two older than they. It is immoral to smoke anything inside someone's house without their permission. It is immoral to smoke around anyone unable to understand (or at least repeat prohibition propaganda) the effects of secondhand cannabis smoke. If you have dependents, it is as wrong to put marijuana before them as it is to put most other things before them. There is nothing wrong with disobeying the law.
Tyranny of the majority (who may or may not be able to see the full consequences of their actions) is still tyranny. The concept of a crime to which all parties concerned gave informed consent is absurd.
Gandhi was wrong. The only duty everyone has in this case is the duty they always have, which is to not initiate force against anyone. In other words, if you actively and intentionally support laws against marijuana (or any other drug barring antibiotics), you are committing an immoral act. While defying immoral laws might be a noble act, it is not wrong to stand aside. Nor is "civil" disobedience any more or less noble than uncivil disobedience, although one or the other may be more effective in a given situation.
If you honestly believe that being put in prison for cannabis is less harmful than smoking it... well, pot never gave anyone AIDS, but prison rape certainly does. The state has no right to keep people from harming themselves anyway.
There is a difference between a lie and an incorrect assumption. That said, if one made a claim they no longer intend to fill, the claim should be retracted via the same medium if reasonably possible.
"manipulate people with it"? How so? Last I heard, no one holds a gun to the head of the people buying it or any other drug... if you want to take someone's money by force, why give them anything in return? That does not make economic sense. Selling an accurately labeled product to adults is not wrong. While I suppose it is possible to trick someone into unwittingly and/or unintentionally consuming cannabis, why?
Why is being addicted to something (necessarily) a bad thing? Everyone alive is physiologically dependent on food, water, and oxygen, all of which are capable of altering one's mental processes when used as directed. Psychological addiction is a scary way of saying that people would rather do things they enjoy.
Marijuana, DMT, psilocybin mushrooms (4-HO-DMT, its phosphate ester, and other related chemicals), and lysergic acids in the form of morning glory seeds are all used as sacraments by various religions. They are illegal. Peyote and DPT are also sacraments, but are legal only for members of those religions. They tried hard to prevent that from happening. Salvia is yet another sacrament, and those bastards at the DEA are trying to get that made illegal too. Oh wait, only your religion gets its drugs. I see.
Marijuana is just marijuana, more so now than in earlier decades. A dealer who laced his cannabis with something else would not be able to make a profit at normal prices.
Damage is relative. People who donate a kidney to a loved one are damaging themselves. Sometimes, the trade-off is worth it. Marijuana is one of the safest drugs known to man. Smoking it (as opposed to eating or vaporizing it) might possibly give one lung cancer. Luckily THC itself helps to prevent cancer. If death was avoidable, it might make sense to avoid all pleasurable activities that take a few seconds, minutes, weeks, months, or even years off the end. It is not. People die in car crashes every year.
All you anti-drug people have fun driving your car, swilling down your aspartame, processed sugar, caffeine, fat, and sodium, while talking on your cell phones.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote: I think, then, that comparison to religion (or, as you say, porn) is entirely justified.
Religion is too broad a category. It's like saying all drugs are the same. "Religion" is not a specific behavior - it could mean anything from nightly Mass to morning prayers to church twice a year to a dance in the moonlight once a month.
On the other hand, smoking marijuana is a very specific act. Your original statement was wrong (and rude, by the way) because it was way, way too broad.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Does this make me lesser of a man? Only when you are using it. A man who has artificially altered his personality and judgement is, at that moment, less than his true self. Does this make me an evil man? No, I don't believe in evil men. Does this make me an immoral man? Yes, it is immoral to impair your good judgement. It might lead you to do other immoral things, when you are not yourself. Does this make me a man who belongs in prison? Yes, under my understanding of the law. . Does it make me a sinner? Probably. That's up to God. Does it make God love me any less? No. Nothing can make God love you less.
[ October 30, 2004, 01:17 AM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Danzig avoiding landmarks (Member # 6792) on :
Drugs alter perspectives, emotions, and priorities. Not judgement (except as expressed via priorities), and not personalities... well, not without a conscious effort on the part of the user. They do tend to accelerate already present trends, but the potential is within the person, not the drug. They might reveal aspects of the user's mind to them and/or others. With new knowledge comes a reevaluation of previous estimations, often leading to different results.
You are always yourself on drugs. Always. Anyone who claims otherwise is making excuses for someone. Often they try to excuse their own actions. Other times they want a scapegoat, because that is easier than admitting someone they loved, admired, emulated, or believed had it in them to do such a horrible thing. Sorry, but your or their heart is as black as anyone else's.
Less than your true self? Sometimes. Just as often drugs make you more than your true self... Windows is the default operating system for home and office PCs. It is not necessarily the best.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
If we're going to be compared to operating systems, taking drugs is not like installing linux on your home machine, it's like screwing with the hardware on your computer, or maybe just deleting system memory.
Hobbes Posted by Danzig avoiding landmarks (Member # 6792) on :
To someone only familiar with Windows, Linux from a command line would be cumbersome. It is also less useful as a gaming platform. (I am not trying to imply that sobriety is an inferior state of mind for everyone. If it works for you, great. It is not a superior platform for everyone.)
If you wish to make a hardware analogy, drugs are similar to overclocking the computer, or adding a TV tuner. Useful for recreation as well as "important" tasks, but the possibility to break something is there. The more you read about it and ask questions of those more experienced, the greater the likelihood of having a computer better suited to your needs.
[ October 30, 2004, 03:35 AM: Message edited by: Danzig avoiding landmarks ]
Posted by Danzig avoiding landmarks (Member # 6792) on :
katharina, would you like me to compare the negative aspects of a specific religion to the specific drug marijuana? You can pick the religion. KoM seems to be pretty intelligent; too intelligent to single out the religion of the original "control your life" poster.
How about the other way around? Comparing "drugs" to "religion"?
Claiming that a person's drug of choice has control over their life is just as rude as claiming that their faith does.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
No, pick a specific activity that's addicting. A meeting, prayers, knocking on doors, meditation, reading the scriptures, handing out flyers - those are specific activities.
In your analogy, religion:drugs::praying:smoking marijuana.
If you want legitimacy for your analogy at all, be specific.
[ October 30, 2004, 08:56 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Actually, kat, there is evidence that the state of religious euphoria itself is addicting. So any activity which produces this state could in theory suffice.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
And not all religious activities produce that religious euphoria. It's still not specific enough.
It's like saying "Science is wrong." Some of it is, and hopefully as there is more research, we'll figure out which parts, but it's just too vague a statement to be useful.
Posted by Danzig avoiding landmarks (Member # 6792) on :
Well, in high school I was fairly actively involved in my church's (large) youth group. One of the things we did was have a few people get on stage to play instruments and sing worship songs, while the students sang along. Several times I experienced a "spirit high", which several leaders had referenced in various talks. Now, that high is nice enough, but you cannot spend your entire life in an auditorium. That would prevent living a "normal" life much more than smoking marijuana every day. We only did it once or twice a week. Smoking marijuana once or twice a week would probably be about as expensive for anyone who used around five dollars worth of gas to get to church.
The state of dissociation has been compared to that of meditation and/or yoga by a user who started with DXM and switched. I have never practiced yoga or meditated in that way, so I cannot vouch for it personally. More conventional psychedelics have produced states of samadhi extremely similar to that described in Eastern traditions, although again I am relying on accounts of others, rather than my own personal experience of those traditions.
The last few times I have volunteered, the headspace I was in upon finishing was similar to the one produced by about a third of a regular strength MDMA pill, although admittedly it lacked the pleasant tactile sensations. Nor was I volunteering because I place a high value on service to others. The last time I only went to see a friend, but it still worked. Someone who actually believed they were making the world a better place or following God's will would likely get a more intense experience than I. I have heard many people who volunteer regularly say they found themselves coming back to the experience due to how good it made them feel. Admittedly some of them (depending on the nature of their work) are probably subconsciously (or consciously) power tripping, but that corresponds to the headspace generally caused by amphetamines and cocaine.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Drugs alter perspectives, emotions, and priorities. Not judgement (except as expressed via priorities), and not personalities... well, not without a conscious effort on the part of the user.
This is not true. Everytime I've witness a person who'd taken a significant amount of a mind-altering substance, they've had different judgement and a different personality. Alcohol, for instance, often makes people more open and extraverted, although other times it does the exact opposite. And judgement is quite often significantly different - people on substances will often do things I know for a fact they wouldn't do normally. That may be a matter of priorities, but it is definitely also a matter of judgement.
When you impair your judgement you break what is possibly the most fundamental and important moral rule of them all: Always use your best judgement.
And when you deliberately alter your own character and personality, you disrespect yourself. The implication often is that you aren't good or cool or likeable enough as your normal self - and I think that implication is self-damaging.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Just out of curiosity, of the people here condemning marijuana, how many drink on a regular basis? I'll start : I do not drink, smoke, or do drugs.
Posted by Danzig avoiding landmarks (Member # 6792) on :
Fine. Drugs alter your judgement and personality. I disagree, and wish you would address what I wrote about intoxication as an excuse, but it is an issue of how personality, judgement, priorities, emotions, and perspective are defined, and I have better things to do than argue with you over semantics. I reject the assertion that sobriety is always one's best judgement.
Guess what? My own default character and/or personality is not as good as my personality on certain drugs. Some people would find me more likeable on a given drug, and some less. In my own case, if I did not lose any friends (and I may have) when I started using drugs they disapproved of, I certainly lost acquaintances. Personally, the more I enjoy or receive a net benefit from a state of mind, the more I like it. This means that I do like myself better when I am under the influence of most drugs than when I am sober. <edit> I absolutely am more likely to follow the morals of the "people are owed aid even if their misfortune is not your fault (which it always is)" crowd when I am stoned or rolling. That makes my character "better" by their standards. Not by mine, but drugs help my standards as well... because I consciously chose to use them for that purpose. </edit>
As for being cool... it depends on the person more than the drug, as well as how cool is defined. If it is cool to rebel against societal expectations, then cigarette smokers are cool. If cool is self-destruction, smokers are cool. If cool is taking steps to increase the chance of dying from something other than lung or heart cancer is cool, smokers are uncool. If you get your political opinions from NOFX, drugs are good.
quote: Drugs are good, they let you do things that you know you not should And when you do them people think that you're cool And when you do them people think that you're cool
For many people, more than would admit it, more than would even have the necessary data, their sober characters and/or personalities are not as good or likeable (to me and/or others) as their personality on a given drug. For example, someone who is extremely anxious and shows it I find tiresome to be around, as well as less good than they have the potential to be. If they take a benzo, or even a drink of alcohol, that means I like being around them. Not that they should do drugs because of my opinions, but the opinion does go up. Antidepressants alter the personality for the better if they work, and for the worse if they do not.
Also, every time you witnessed? How often is that, and how many and which substances? Who are you or anyone else to say their sober judgement is always morally (or otherwise) better than their altered judgement? I do not make the opposite claim; certainly sobriety is best for some people. Not all drugs impair mental function; some (stimulants) improve it.
<edit #2>Added a couple missing words.</edit>
[ October 30, 2004, 09:17 PM: Message edited by: Danzig avoiding landmarks ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Danzig, do you generally post sober or while under the influence? I'm curious as to whether a chemical or your natural personality influences how I feel about you.
Posted by Danzig avoiding landmarks (Member # 6792) on :
All of the above. Does being under the influence of caffeine count as sober to you? Not to me.
In case you think that the drugs are responsible for me recognizing that your need is not my obligation, no. Well, perhaps caffeine, but nothing else.
Posted by Danzig avoiding landmarks (Member # 6792) on :
Morally, if it is wrong to take what prohibitionists generally recognize as drugs, it is also wrong to take pain relief, Viagra, or antidepressants. Sobriety is best, remember? But I am sure someone will find a way to attempt a justification.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I would submit that there are real and valid distinctions between taking medications intended to reduce pain and/or prescribed to treat genuine mental distress and taking self-prescribed, often impure and/or illegal concoctions mainly intended for escapism.
I'll freely agree that the line gets really blurry when we're talking about things like an open prescription for Valium -- but, even there, such drugs are generally legally unavailable except under the supervision of trained medical staff.
You'll forgive me if I do not endorse chemical experimentation on one's own brain.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Morally, if it is wrong to take what prohibitionists generally recognize as drugs, it is also wrong to take pain relief, Viagra, or antidepressants. Sobriety is best, remember? But I am sure someone will find a way to attempt a justification.
This last post is a perfect example of the dangers of not understanding the reasoning of someone you disagree with. There are many factors that can be considered when deciding if taking a particular substance at a particular time for a particular reason is right or wrong. To blithely assume that the categorization of one substance/instance/reason grouping as wrong requires the same grouping of the thousands of other such groupings is fallacious and near question-begging.
Dagonee
[ October 30, 2004, 09:32 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Danzig avoiding landmarks (Member # 6792) on :
Pain can be emotional or physical. Narcotics* relieve both. There are people who use illegal narcotics because the legal ones are either too expensive or unavailable, due to laws designed to make sure not one single drug user gets a legal prescription. Why is it wrong to take heroin (which can be easily purified, and even on the street is likely to contain more pure substance than most (all?) hydrocodone pills) but not Percoset, which contains either 5 or 10 mg oxycodone and a lot of useless and dangerous acetaminophen? Most dealers at least try to cut their product with safe ingredients, because even though every single last one of them is possessed by Satan himself, dead users are bad for business. Heroin has also been getting purer since at least the middle 90's, despite being illegal.
What about amphetamine? Adderall is prescribed to children (and to a somewhat lesser extent adults) like Halloween candy. The 20 and 30 IRs even taste like candy. Can I get a legal speed prescription? Does that make it ok? It really does give me more ability to focus, as well as motivation.
Maybe I and others take illegal drugs to escape a genuine mental illness. What if I get diagnosed with one and then take illegal drugs to treat it? What if those drugs are the same ones prescribed to treat that illness, and taken in the same dosage?
There is a middle ground between endorsing something and condemning it. I will forgive the first, but not the second. Well, I will forgive the second, but only if the attitude has changed. I have used drugs (or specific ways of taking a drug) that I do not endorse or encourage others to do. Even a drug or two I actually regret using, or using as much as I did. There are also some drugs that do not sound enjoyable or wise which I have not tried, and have no intention of doing so. None of those drugs/actions were or are actually immoral, though.
Not all drug use is experimentation. Some of mine was, but if a drug has been used for thousands of years with relatively well-known effects and dangers, it is no more experimenting than the labs we did in chemistry class. Yes, it is possible to accidentally harm oneself. People who pay attention generally will not. Life is short, why not enjoy it?
There are instances when taking a particular drug for a particular reason at a particular time (did you mean situation or circumstance?) is wrong, if you meant situation or circumstance. When you have been invited to private property, in most instances it is wrong to go against the owner's wishes. Using antibiotics unnecesarily is wrong, wrong enough that they are the only drugs that should have their availability to adults regulated. Antibiotics have a measurable negative effect upon unconsenting others when used inappropriately, something that cannot be said for any other drug.
One situation or circumstances that are irrelevant to a drug's morality is having someone with a piece of paper and hopefully a superior education say it is ok. Another is having someone with a gun say it is ok. A third is influencing what is supposed to be a sentient, sapient entity into believing that perhaps going against the beliefs of their parents or society is not actually intrinsically wrong, or believing that the goals of others for them should be their goals as well.
*Opiates or opioids. Cocaine is not a narcotic; it is pretty much the opposite of one, no matter how hard the US government pretends otherwise.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
I would argue the difference is this: Something is a mind-altering substance if it used to alter your mind to its natural state. And something is medicine if it is used to return your mind to its natural state when something (chemical or biological) has altered it.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
The natural state of someone with a broken leg is pain. I suggest that you mean 'usual'. I also suggest that you not use words that you clearly do not understand the meaning of.
Posted by Danzig avoiding landmarks (Member # 6792) on :
No. If you have a chemical imbalance, that is your natural state of mind. It is also your normal state of mind until or unless you take medication.
And something is a mind-altering substance if it alters your state of mind when taken into your body. If medicines are not a subset of mind-altering substances (being physically ill can make you depressed) they overlap.
Also, everyone has the right to decide their own medical treatment, whether or not their decision is the "best". This right exists even if their reasoning for choosing that treatment is provably incorrect, as long as it does not affect others. In other words, the only people who are doing anything wrong when making or influencing that decision are the idiots who ask for antibiotics when they are not needed, and the doctors who prescribe them. Prescribe me my drugs of choice, jerks; I at least have some basic understanding of what they do and how they do it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Danzig, I have no interest in debating with you when it's immoral to take what drugs for what reasons.
I am interested in pointing out that it is possible for taking drug A at time B for reason C to be considered immoral, while taking drug D at time E for reason F is considered immoral.
In other words, the if-then statement represented by "Morally, if it is wrong to take what prohibitionists generally recognize as drugs, it is also wrong to take pain relief, Viagra, or antidepressants" is not true without additional proof of the entire contention.
Here it is symbolocially:
If A then B.
You can give reasons why proposition A is not true to your hearts content without proving or disproving "If A then B."
Dagonee
Posted by Danzig avoiding landmarks (Member # 6792) on :
Let me try again.
Drugs and methods of consuming drugs with non-medical uses = D Drugs and methods of consuming drugs without direct non-local consequences = F Drugs and methods of consuming drugs with direct non-local consequences = A Drugs and methods of consuming drugs with direct non-local consequences to which all affected people have consented = C Immoral = I
Direct non-local consequences are defined as having an unpreventable effect upon the physiology of someone other than the person ingesting it. Secondhand smoke is a non-local consequence, as are bacteria resistant to antibiotics. Drunk driving, emotional distress, and poor role models are not.
Consent can be explicit or implied. Implied consent is granted when the non-consuming party has no reasonable expectation of avoiding non-local consequences. Voluntarily entering the property of a known smoker grants implied consent. Entering the property of one who may or may not smoke does as well. Asking someone who you have just learned smokes to refrain until you leave the premises withdraws it, assuming you leave when requested.
No F are I. Some (most) D are F. Some (most) D are not I.
No C are I. All C are A. Some A are not I.
So Thor, if you are reading this, do not smoke marijuana around anyone unable or unwilling to give consent. Feel free to eat brownies or vaporize it whether they like it or not.
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
"Weed isn't addictive, I know 'cause I've been smoking it for years!"
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)